E407 




V^> V™V V'^V *- *■* 
'&\ s*tiifeS >*Vi^V Aj^ssA 









«feV* 




.0* .-^,*« 















» ^ v 



v * 





*o 



a^sK . 




^ ^Trr:* .-?• 















.0. 



?« : * ^ '-^R : /°- -life ^. -.' 

■ •* .<P *■#. •77,-' «.* o. 









> • o • < 















4* .>v^. ^. .i* 'Vate 







. ^y A * ■" 



A^ - 



^v 1 







C» 



THE AVAR WITH MKX1UU. 



SPEECH 



HON, JAMES S. GREEN, OF MISSOURI, 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 25, 1848. 

In Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, on the Resolutions referring the 
President's Message to the various Standing Committees. 



Mr. GREEN said : 

Mr. Chairman : I am highly pleased with the 
manner and style of the honorable gentleman from 
Maryland, [Mr. Roman,] who has just taken his 
seat; but however much I may have been attracted 
by his rhetoric, and entertained with his argu- 
ments, yet I can by no means subscribe to his sen- 
timents, or agree to his conclusions; from all of 
which I materially and essentially differ. And, in 
consequence of such difference, I feel constrained 
to give some reasons, which, to myself at least, 
are of a satisfactory character; not, however, with 
the hope or expectation of shedding any new light 
upon the subject under consideration, or of present- 
ing any new facts, of which gentlemen present are 
not already fully advised; but merely for the pur- 
pose of stating my own deductions from admitted 
facts, in vindication of the course I shall pursue, 
and the several votes I shall necessarily give, on 
the subject of the Mexican war. This is regarded 
as due, not only to myself, but especially to those 
whom I have the honor to represent, and whose 
sentiments it becomes my duty to sustain to the 
best of my ability. 

The principal, if not indeed the only point in the 
arguments of gentlemen on the other side of the 
House, to which I propose calling the attention of 
the committee, is the very extraordinary charge 
made against the President of the United States. 
He is charged with having commenced the war 
with Mexico unnecessarily, and in violation of the 
Constitution. But let it be remembered, that this 
charge is made by many of the same members, 
who, at the last session, voted to declare, to support, 
and to prosecMe, the war. Most strange and re- 
markable is the wonderful revolution wrought in 
their sentiments since the appearance of the cele- 
brated Lexington speech ! 

In attempting to do justice to the President, and 
to vindicate him against this injurious accusation, 
I wish to call the attention of the committee to a 
few facts, known to exist, and about which there 
can be no controversy. But, first, let us pause a 
moment, and consider who make this charge, and 
under what circumstances it is made. Does a 
majority of the people's representatives in Con- 
gress either make or endorse it? Will a majority 
of the people themselves sustain it? No, sir; I 
cannot believe it. So far as information is before 
us, we are warranted in believing that a large 
majority of the people of the United States will 
Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. 



triumphantly sustain the President. Out of two 
hundred and twenty-eight votes in this House, 
only eighty-two gentlemen have endorsed the 
charge. And do they, in this act, truly represent 
the sentiments of their constituents? Are they act- 
ing in conformity with the views of the people? 
Are they carrying out their will, which should al- 
ways be held sacred? We think not. And espe- 
cially do we feel warranted in this conclusion, from 
the fact that the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. 
Lincoln,] one of the eighty-two, admitted that he 
came to the seat of Government without having 
formed any opinion on the subject; that when he 
voted as he did, it was from a hasty and imperfect 
examination; and that it was the first time he had 
ventured to make such a declaration. Of course, 
therefore, he did not canvass the subject before the 
people, and cannot say his vote will meet their ap- 
probation. There may be others in the same con- 
dition. Moreover, that honorable gentleman ep- 
resents the chivalrous district in Illinois from 
which the gallant Hardin rushed to the battle-field. 
And can it be possible that the brave survivors of 
the noble Hardin, who sacrificed his life in the 
prosecution of the war, would now declare that that 
contest in which they engaged with so much patri- 
otic ardor, was unjust and unconstitutional ? No, 
sir, no; this cannot be. They no doubt felt and 
believed, when they voluntarily relinquished the 
pursuits of private life, and went forth to meet the 
enemy, and grapple with their country's foe, that 
they were engaged in an honorable, just, and ne- 
cessary war, wrongfully commenced by the act of 
Mexico,— and these feelings nerved their arms, 
and animated their bosoms throughout the san- 
guinary conflict. And now, to characterize the 
war as unjust and unconstitutional, is an act of un- 
pardonable injury, not only to the country at large, 
but especially to those brave and noble spirits who 
have volunteered their services in the contest. 

It is, however, worthy of remark, that this un- 
just imputation against the President has been 
made only by a. portion of his political opponents, 
and by his bitter enemies. The fact that all his 
political friends and some of his opponents sustain 
his conduct in this matter, proves that he is not 
justified on mere party grounds, but on principle, 
and in justice to him and the country. Whether 
the approaching Presidential election in 1848, and 
the political effect to be produced by a censure of 
the President has had any influence on the minds 



2 



E^cn 



of those who have voted the charge, I will not 
even pretend to say, but leave it, on the true facts 
of the case, for the country to judge. And be it 
as it may, we are ready and willing to join issue 
on this question, and go before the impartial voters 
of the nation for their decision. 

This brings me to the main point — to consider 
whether the war was unnecessarily and unconsti- 
tutionally commenced by the act of the President. 
This charge, however, is very cautiously and dex- 
terously made. It does not affirm the war to be 
now unconstitutional, but merely that it was com- 
menced without constitutional authority. Now, if 
the honorable gentlemen will express an abstract 
opinion, as they have done in reference to the 
commencement of the war, why not say, in explicit 
terms, whether the war is now unnecessary and 
unconstitutional ? There is certainly more neces- 
sity for expressing your opinion in the latter case 
than in the former. Then, why not declare your 
opinions? Show your hands fully. Let the peo- 
ple understand your positions. Make no effort to 
deceive them; for to them we are are all justly 
responsible. 

But what is the specific act charged against the 
President? It is marching the army into disputed 
territory, and posting it on the left bank of the Rio 
Grande, in the month of April, 1846. This, sir, 
is the specification. I present the issue fairly, and 
intend to meet it fairly. Now, so far as this act 
is concerned — if that be the unconstitutional act of 
which gentlemen accuse the President, and the 
commencement of the war — then, so far as opinion 
is concerned, he and General Taylor occupy pre- 
cisely the same ground. On the 4th of October, 
1845, long before the march of the army to the 
Rio Grande, General Taylor wrote to the depart- 
ment at Washington as follows: 

"For these reasons, our position thus far has, I think, 
been ihe best possible ; but now that the entire force would 
soon he concentrated, it may well be a question whether 
the views of the Government would be carried out by re- 
maining at this point. It is with great deference that I make 
any suggestion on topics which may become matter of deli- 
cate negotiation ; hut if our Government, in settling the ques- 
tion of boundary, makes the line of the Rio Grande an ulti- 
matum, Icannot doubt that the settlement would lie greatly 
facilitated and hastened by our taking possession at once of 
one or two suitable points on or quite near that river. ." 

Here, then, is the advice of General Taylor to 
do that act at once which the President refused to 
do for long afterwards, and until all efforts at ne- 
gotiation had wholly failed; and yet, for the doing 
of which the President is censured by these gentle- 
men, while they seek to reward General Taylor 
with the Presidency of the United States. Surely 
an inconsistency so gross cannot deceive any one, 
however blinded by party prejudice. But 1 hold, 
sir, that General Taylor and the President are both 
justifiable for that act, in which they did nothing 
more than was required of them, and was authorized 
by the Constitution and laws passed in pursuance 
thereof. And I believe a proper consideration of all 
the facts involved, and a careful examination of the 
true relations existing between the United States 
and Mexico at that time, will abundantly prove 
my position, and sustain the President against all 
successful attacks. I do not justify this act of the 
President because Mexico owes us money — be- 
cause she has perpetrated outrages and wrongs on 
our commerce, and on the persons and property 
of our citizens — nor even because she has insulted 



G^ 



us as a nation; for, although these thing3 may pre- 
sent good grounds why Congress should declare 
war against her, and although they dp show in an 
eminent degree the justice of the war since the 
13th May, 1846, when declared by Congress, and 
also the necessity of a vigorous prosecution of the 
war, in order to obtain satisfaction and justice from 
the enemy, yet they do not, in my opinion, justify 
the President for the commencement of the war, if, 
in fact, he did commence it, as charged by his op- 
ponents. But I justify his conduct on other and 
entirely different ground. And if it shall appear 
that he is sustained and supported in what he did 
by constitutional authority, then these injurious 
charges which have been made against him must 
and will be hurled back with a crushing weight on 
the heads of those who have, either thoughtlessly 
or maliciously, made them. 

Mr. Chairman, this subject presents a grave and 
important inquiry. And if the President has been 
guilty of the unconstitutional acts of which he is 
accused, then let no party zeal, let no party attach- 
ment, seek to cloak the criminality of so serious 
an abuse of place and authority; but let us speak 
out boldly and conscientiously, whatever may be 
the effects upon party — even to its utter annihila- 
tion. 

Yes, sir, we will stand by the Constitution of 
our country as the best guarantee of liberty, and 
not by any man who violates it. But, on the 
other hand, high-sounding epithets and bold asser- 
tions will not frighten and induce us to abandon 
the President without a careful investigation of the 
charges brought against him. 

Now let us carefully consider the facts involved 
in this inquiry. 

First. On the 4th of July, 1845, the annexation 
of Texas to the United States became complete, 
and from that time forth it became the duty of 
the President of the United States to protect and 
defend her against invasion. This position has 
never been and can never be successfully contro- 
verted. And here let me correct an error into 
which the gentleman from Maryland [Mr. Roman] 
seems to have fallen. He appeared to think that 
the President could do nothing of a warlike charac- 
ter without the previous concurrence of Congress; 
but such is a mistake. It is the President's right 
and duty to repel invasion and suppress insurrec- 
tion, without any action on the subject by Con- 
gress. If either invasion or insurrection should 
be known to him to exist, it is his constitutional 
duty to repel the one and suppress the other; and 
to neglect to do so, would be a violation of his oath 
of office. 

In the second place : When the annexation of 
Texas took place, the Mexican Government pro- 
tested against it, and declared she would consider 
the annexation of Texas as a declaration of war. 
But, notwithstanding the protest of Mexico, Texas 
was annexed by the act of Congress, and, accord- 
ing to the protest of Mexico, and the opinions of 
Mr. Clay, Mr. Gallatin, and many other leading 
Whigs, a state of War with Mexico was thereby 
produced. Bear in mind, however, that this stale 
of war between the United States and Mexico was 
all brought about by the act of Congress, the war- 
making power, and not by the President. 

Again : after this event, the Mexican minis- 
ter demanded his passports, and withdrew from 
his official position near this Government, evi- 



dencing the termination of all friendly relations. 
And, thereupon, Mexico threatened to invade 
Texas, and issued her proclamations, and com- 
menced raising and organizing troops for that 
particular purpose. On the west of the Rio Grande, 
she had collected about seven thousand troops, 
with the express design of invading Texas. As 
yet, however, the United States had done nothing 
of a hostile character, nor any act of which Mex- 
ico complained, except the annexation of Texas 
by the act of Congress. Now, whether Mexico 
had any just cause of offence or not, (and I say 
she had no just cause,) still, I insist, as she chose, 
in fact, so to consider the annexation of Texas, 
and did make preparations and threats to invade 
Texas, it was the duty of the President to look at 
the facts as they stood, and to act in view of them. 
When Mexico notified us that annexation would, 
in her understanding, be war, and when she accord- 
ingly openly prepared for war, I say it was the 
President's duty to prepare for the consequences. 
We had elected him President; the President is 
bound to repel invasion; Mexico had threatened 
invasion; had withdrawn her minister, and raised 
her armies: and will any man deny that it was the 
President's duty to prepare to repel that invasion? 
However unfounded the views Mexico chose to 
take of annexation, still she took them, avowed 
them, gave us warning of them, acted upon them; 
and that being the case, the President must govern 
himself accordingly, Now, in this condition of 
affairs, could the President stand still, and permit 
our country to be overrun by the enemy? No, 
sir. It was his imperative duty to prepare to re- 
pel the invasion, and to place the army at the most 
eligible point for that purpose. That point General 
Taylor considered the left bank of the Rio Grande. 
And in the discharge of this duty to repel invasion, 
wherever and whenever threatened, he was bound 
to place the army on the disputed territory. This, 
it is well known, extended from the Sabine, on the 
east, to the Rio Grande, on the west, embracing the 
whole of Texas. That rule of international law 
which prohibits the armed occupation of disputed 
territory did not, and could not, apply to the then 
dispute between the United States and Mexico. 
This, I think, will appear from the following con- 
siderations : 

First. Mexico stood in a state of hostility to- 
wards the United States, from her own declara- 
tions and acts; was raising and equipping armies 
for the invasion of Texas, which was the territory 
just annexed to the United States. And this rule, 
so far as I have been able to examine the writers 
on international law, has never been applied to 
belligerent nations, but only to nations in a state 
of peace. 

Second. Mexico had withdrawn her minister 
resident at Washington, and refused to negotiate 
on the subject in controversy long before the march 
of the army to the Rio Grande. At the earnest 
solicitation of the United States, with a view to the 
amicable adjustment of the dispute, the Mexican 
Government had agreed to receive a minister from 
the United States for that purpose. Mr. Slidell 
was accordingly appointed, and arrived at Mexico 
on the 6th December, 1845. But on the 24th De- 
cember, 1845, Mexico refused to receive Mr. Slidell; 
and on the 29th of the same month, the government 
of Herrera was overthrown for having considered 
die subject of negotiation : and on its ruins was 



erected the government of Paredes, pledged to the 
prosecution of the war against the United States 
for the reconquest of Texas — thus ending all hope 
of an amicable arrangement of the difficulty. 

And third, the non-application of the rule may 
be argued from the absolute necessity of the case. 
This may be considered a new principle, and quite 
a novel way of disposing of that rule of interna- 
tional law. But all such rules have their origin 
in necessity and right, and are discoverable by en- 
lightened human reason. And unless the Presi- 
dent could place the army in Texas, which was 
the disputed territory, the uihole would necessarily 
be abandoned, contrary to tlie expressed will of 
Congress. Who would have the President sur- 
renderTexas to the ravages of the Mexican army ? 
None are so lost to all sense of justice and consti- 
tutional duty. Hear what Mr. Clay says in his 
Lexington speech: 

"But who would now think of perpetrating the folly of 
casting Texas out of the Confederacy, and throwing her 
hack upon her own independence, or into the arms of Mex- 
ico ? Who would now seek to divorce her from thU 
Union ?" 

But if the President could not cast off Texas, 
neither could he cast off any part of it, and was 
bound to defend the whole. 

Moreover, one remark made by the gentleman 
from Maryland [Mr. Roman] fully sustains the 
positions which I have taken, and clearly shows 
that a state of hostilities was in actual existence, 
according to the opinion of Mexico, long previous 
to the march of our army from Corpus Christ! to 
the Rio Grande. He stated in his agument that 
our consul, Mr. Black, in his letter, informed 
Mr. Buchanan, our Secretary of State, that Mex- 
ico had agreed to suspend hostilities for a time, and 
try the effect of negotiation. This occurred in the 
fall of 1845, before Mr. Slidell was either appointed 
or rejected, as before stated ; and about the same time, 
or shortly afterwards, the Mexican Minister of 
Foreign Affairs (Mr. Peiia y Pefia) wrote, in sub- 
stance, the same thing to Mr. Buchanan. But 
notice particularly the effect of the gentleman's 
reference. "To suspend hostilities." What does 
that mean? Does that look like a state of peace? 
Are " hostilities'" and "peace'' synonymous, or 
even compatible terms? Yet that gentleman and 
those with whom he acts say the President com- 
menced the war, ivhile he proves, by the reference 
which he himself has made, that a stale of hostilities 
ivas in existence in the fall of 1845, more than six 
months before the army teas marched to the Rio 
Grande. 

But gentlemen resort to another expedient, in 
order to avoid, if possible, the force of these con- 
clusions, and to sustain their imputations against 
the President. Seeing the effect of the foregoing 
facts, they next say, that although the army mighty 
be placed in Texas, and although it was the duty 
of the President to repel invasion, yet he had no 
right to march to the left bank of the Rio Grande — 
alleging that that was no part of Texas. But when 
and where did you get the distinction between 
Texas to the Nueces and Texas to the Rio 
Grande? You certainly did not get it from Mex- 
ico. She has claimed the whole, and called it a 
" revolted province." Had Mexico ever abandoned 
her claim to Texas east of the Naeces ? Certainly 
not; for after we liad defeated Mexico in numer- 
ous engagements — overrun and occupied more 



than half of her territory — she then proposed, 
through her commissioners, to Mr. Trist, to make 
the Nueces the boundary! She surely could not 
have had the effrontery to make that offer, if she 
had previously abandoned all claim east of the 
Nueces. So that, in any event, even had the 
President abandoned all of Texas lying west of 
the Nueces, (and all of you admit a part lies west of 
that river,) still war was inevitable. And on this 
point permit me to read an extract from the very 
able speech delivered by the distinguished Whig 
Senator from Maryland [Mr. Johnson] a few days 
since: 

"From the commencement of the revolution, in 1834, to 
the independence declared by Texas, in 1836— from tiiat 
period to the admission of Texas into our Union, hi 1845, 
and up to the present hour, no Mexican document can be 
found, military or civil— no Mexican officer, military or 
civil, has ever been known— to contend that the territory 
lying between the Nueces and the Rio Grande belonged to 
Mexico by any other title than that which she maintained 
to the whole territory from the Sabine to the Rio Grande." 

With what propriety, therefore, can it be now 
said that the President had no right to march the 
army to the Rio Grande, when it is evident that 
Mexico set up the same claim of title to the luhole 
of Texas without distinction, and to have withheld 
the army from territory claimed by Mexico would 
have been a complete abandonment of the whole 
of Texas? But let us look still further into the 
nature and quality of the Texan claim to the Rio 
Grande, and see if it was of such a character as 
would authorize the President, on the emergency 
before stated, to protect and defend it from in- 
vasion. 

It will be recollected that the ardent love of lib- 
erty which fired the bosoms of the brave Texans, 
prompted them to take up arms in the exercise of 
their inalienable rights, and fight for independence. 
Mexico, under Santa Anna, her President and 
leader, sought to subjugate Texas. On the 31st 
of April, 1836, the two armies met at San Jacinto, 
where the Texan forces utterly defeated the Mex- 
icans, and took Santa Anna a prisoner. This bat- 
tle has generally been considered decisive of the 
contest; and shortly afterwards, Santa Anna made 
a treaty with Texas, acknowledging her independ- 
ence, the fifth article of which describes the bound- 
ary as follows: 

" The line shall commence at the estuary or mouth of the 
Rio Grande, on the western bank thereof, and shall pursue 
the same bank up the said river to the point where the river 
assumes the name of the Rio Bravo Del Norte ; from which 
point it shall proceed on the western bank to the head waters 
or source of said river — it being understood that the terms 
Rio Grande and Rio Bravo Del Norte, apply to and desig- 
nate one and the same stream — from the source of said river 
(the principal head branch being taken to ascertain that 
source) a due north line shall be run, until it intersects the 
boundary line established and described by the treaty nego- 
tiated by and between the Government of Spain and the 
Government of the United States of America." 

Now, whatever may be said of this treaty, of 
its validity and binding force upon Mexico, it at 
least shows one thing, and that is, that, according 
to the understanding of the two parties, Texas and 
Mexico, the Rio Grande was considered the limit, 
dividing line, or line of demarcation; and that the 
bone of contention between them was the inde- 
pendence of Texas, including all the territory lying 
east of the Rio Grande ; for although Mexico, in 
violation of good faith, afterwards objected to the 
treaty, and prepared to re-invade Texas, yet the 
only ground of opposition was the independence of 
Texas, and not the limit or boundary line — to which, 



as far as I am informed, she never made arty objec- 
tion. Indeed, if the boundary had been her objec- 
tion, it would at once have opened the door to 
negotiation and settlement. 

Again: shortly after the making^f said treaty, 
the Texan Congress passed a law describing her 
boundary, precisely as it is described in the above 
treaty, claiming to the Rio Grande on the west.. 
And with this claim of boundary, in view of the 
success of the Texan arms against Mexico, and in 
view of the treaty just referred to, the United 
States, and the principal Powers of the world, ac- 
knowledged the independence of Texas, without any 
qualification whatever. And to show the effect of 
such acknowledgment, I will read an extract from 
the message of President Jackson, December 21, 
1836, whose opinions are always entitled to high 
respect and serious consideration : 

"The title of Texas to the territory she claims is identified 
with her independence." 

Thus it appears, by the opinion of General 
Jackson, that the principal nations of the earth, 
by acknowledging the independence of Texas, 
have admitted the validity of her claim to its 
whole extent. In reply to this, gentlemen have 
asked, "IVhat if Texas had claimed the whole of 
Mexico?" I answer, that if such had been the 
case, she would not have been acknowledged in- 
dependent, because the truth would have been the 
reverse. The acknowledgment of independence 
was only the recognition of an existing fact — not 
the promulgation of a new one; and hence that 
acknowledgment would not have been made, un- 
less the fact recognized did actually exist. And 
when thus recognized, fairly and without collu- 
sion, it is a sufficient evidence of title to govern 
the conduct of other independent nations in their 
relations with such Government. 

Another fact strengthening my positions, and 
showing that the Rio Grande was regarded as the 
western boundary of the territory in dispute, is 
this: In 1843, an armistice was proposed and par- 
tially ratified between Texas and Mexico — so 
much so, that each party for a time conformed to 
its provisions — by which it was agreed that the 
Texan army should not go ivest of the Rio Grande, 
and the Mexican army should not go east of the 
Rio Grande; thus proving, beyond all cavil, that 
Mexico herself, as well as Texas, regarded the 
Rio Grande as the turning point in the contro- 
versy, and as the line of demarcation. 

Moreover, it should be recollected, that from 
1836, when Santa Anna surrendered to General 
Houston, and from the time Texas claimed the 
boundary of the Rio Grande — from that time to 
1843, on every occasion in which the Mexican 
army crossed the Rio Grande and invaded Texas, 
they were repelled and driven back by the Texans 
to the west of that river. And the gentleman 
from Maryland, above referred to, says: "From 
1843 to the 4th July, 1845, when annexation was 
perfected, no hostile Mexican ever crossed the Rio 
Grande.'" Consequently, Texas had manifested 
an ability to maintain, to that extent, her inde- 
pendence. 

And Texas, with a claim so clearly set forth 
and so well founded on indisputable facts, was an- 
nexed to the United States, and admitted into the 
Federal Union, under the sanction of the laws of 
Congress. Now, sir, with all these facts before 
the country, can any man assert that the territory 



5 



to the Rio Grande was not claimed by Texas ? 
And all her claim was conveyed to the United 
States. If, then, that territory had been claimedby 
Texas, and not by Mexico, the title would have 
been perfect and quiet; but if the title was claimed 
by Mexico, and also by Texas, then it was dispu- 
ted territory; and, if disputed territory — which no 
one will deny — then, according to my preceding 
arguments, in the emergency then existing, it was 
not only the constitutional right, but also the i?it- 
perative duty, of the Executive to protect and defend 
it against all invasion. What right had the Ex- 
ecutive to surrender any portion of the territory 
claimed by Texas ? All that claim had been annexed 
by the Congress, and the only power of the Presi- 
dent to relinquish any claim of territory is conjointly 
with the Senate as the treaty-making power. The 
treaty power had been tried in vain. Mr. Slidell 
was sent to Mexico to settle the difficulty. On the 
24th December, 1845, he was rejected by the Gov- 
ernment of Mexico. On the 29th December, 1845, 
Herrera's administration was overthrown by mili- 
tary force, in consequence of having considered the 
question of negotiating with our Government. 
Paredes came into power, pledged to reconquer 
the same Texas which we had annexed, and 
which the President was bound to defend. And 
yet the magnanimity of the President induced him 
to instruct Mr. Slidell to make another effort at 
negotiation, which he did, and was finally rejected 
on the 12th March, 1846, by Paredes 's government; 
and the army of General Taylor did not touch the 
territory, which gentlemen call disputed, until some 
time in April, 1846. These are facts, sir, which 
defy contradiction, and triumphantly sustain the 
Executive in all his conduct. But gentlemen say 
the President did not know of the rejection of nego- 
tiation, before the order to march the army to the 
Rio Grande was made. This is a strange objec- 
tion, and shows the great extremity to which they 
are driven to hunt up objections. Why, I care 
not whether.he had any official information. "The 
facts are, as I have before stated ; and the result 
proves with what accuracy he formed his judg- 
ment of events, and prepared to meet the coming 
exigency. 

Here, then, Mr. Chairman, is the true state of 
the case: Texas having claimed the territory from 
the Sabine to the Rio Grande; the United States 
having acquired all the title of Texas; Mexico hav- 
ing also claimed the country to the Sabine; Mex- 
ico having brought about a state of hostilities; 
having threatened to invade and reconquer Texas; 
all attempts at negotiation having wholly failed; 
our minister of peace being refused; Mexico hav- 
ing collected large armie3 on the west of the Rio 
Grande, and ready to put her threat of invasion 
into execution, — then, at this point of time and in 
this condition of affairs, the President, as a pre- 
cautionary measure, places the army on the east 
bank of the Rio Grande, a part of the disputed 
territory. The Mexican army comes over the 
Rio Grande, and kills American citizens and Amer- 
ican soldiers; and, having butchered this small 
party, attacks the army under General Taylor. 
This attack is successfully repulsed; and because 
of all this, are we to be told by Americans that the 
President commenced the war? Shame, shame ! to 
those who oppose their country's rights. To what 
lengths will partisan zeal lead, for the sake of in- 
juring a political opponent ! But it cannot finally 



injure the President. Truth is powerful; the peo- 
ple are just; and the President may anticipate, with 
pleasure, the verdict which they will render. 

Mr. Chairman, I have endeavored, in my pre- 
ceding remarks, to establish — first, that it was the 
right and duty of the President to protect and de- 
fend Texas against all threatened invasion; sec- 
ond, that under the peculiar circumstances of this 
case, as invasion was impending, it was his duty 
to march the army to the most eligible point of 
defence, even on disputed territory, or to abandon 
the whole of Texas to the enemy; and third, that 
the disputed territory extended from the Sabine to 
the Rio Grande. Whether my arguments are sat- 
isfactory to the Opposition, I cannot pretend to say; 
but for myself, they prove conclusively that it was 
the right and the duty of the President to march 
the army to the Rio Grande. 

But before I quit this part of my remarks, there 
is one argument made by the gentleman from Ma- 
ryland, [Mr. Roman,] which I must notice. He 
says, the President, in defending to the left bank 
of the Rio Grande, has gone directly contrary to 
the opinion of the Senate, as expressed on the Tyler 
treaty. 

But so far from this being the case, the reverse 
is true, as a few moments reflection will prove. 
And the President in this respect, although not 
bound to do so, has acted in exact conformity with 
the will of the Senate as thereon manifested. The 
Tyler treaty conveyed to the United States only 
whatever title Texas had. The resolutions of an- 
nexation accomplish precisely the same thing. Both 
leave the question of boundary to be settled or ad- 
justed with Mexico. The Tyler treaty is in the 
following language: 

" The Republic of Texas, acting in conformity with the 
wishes of the people, and every department of its govern- 
ment, cedes to the United States all its territories, to be held 
by them in full property and sovereignty, and to be annexed 
to the said United States as one of their territories, subject to 
the same constitutional provisions with olher territories." — 
■Art. 1 of Treaty. 

It will be observed by this treaty that the Uni- 
ted States would have acquired, simply, all the ter- 
ritories of Texas, with such title only as Texas 
possessed.. By the resolution of annexation by 
which we have acquired Texas, the claim is of a 
precisely similar character. It is in these words: 

" That Congress doth consent that the territory properly 
included within, and rightfully belonging to, the Republic of 
Texas may be erected into a new State, &c, &c, subject to 
the following conditions : first, said State to be formed sub- 
ject to the adjustment by this Government of all questions 
of boundary, &c. 

' r Approved March 1, 1845." 

Now, the Tyler treaty was rejected by the Sen- 
ate, on the ground that, as Texas claimed to the 
Rio Grande, we would be taking from Mexico a 

Eortion of her territory. How, I ask, would that 
e taking territory from Mexico? Not by ratify- 
ing the treaty; for without enforcing the claim, it 
would certainly do Mexico no harm whatever. 
And if the Senate believed, as they did, that the 
ratification of the treaty would be robbing Mex- 
ico, it must have been on the ground, that in the 
absence of negotiation or settlement with Mexico, 
it would be the duty of the Government, and the 
President, as the executive officer, to protect and 
defend to the utmost verge of the claim. And, of 
course, the same duty devolved on the President 
under the resolutions of annexation, as they ac- 
quire exactly what the treaty would have acquired. 



And if it would have been the duty of the President 
to defend the whole claim under the treaty, it would 
likewise be his duty to defend the whole claim un- 
der the resolutions of annexation. About this 
there can be no contrariety of opinion. Yet the 
President, witli admirable prudence, sought to ad- 
just the boundary in a friendly manner, and never 
marched the army to the Rio Grande, until the 
menaces of Mexico were endangering the free 
citizens of America, and when, to have refused or 
neglected to afford protection, would have been to 
submit to insult and outrage, in violation of his 
duty. 

Sir, these facts, to my mind, conclusively and 
emphatically sustain the President in doing what 
he did. Yes, sir, they more than justify his con- 
duct; they prove to the world with what circum- 
spection, caution, and justice, with what energy, 
vigor, and perseverance, he has administered the 
Government, and protected and defended the hon- 
or and the interests of this great nation. For 
this, and for his magnanimity and prudence, for 
his sagacity and firmness, as manifested in the 
management of our public affairs, he will ever be 
gratefully remembered by the American people. 

But, Mr. Chairman, before I close my remarks, 
I must call the attention of the committee to a 
few other facts. It will be observed, that this 
charge against the President has been shaped with 
a great deal of ingenuity, and that while these 
gentlemen have declared the war unconstitutionally 
commenced by the President, they have not com- 
mitted themselves to anything but the commence- 
ment. Will these gentlemen declare the war now to 
be unconstitutional ? After the 13th May, 1846, was 
the war unconstitutional? Or did its unconstitu- 
tionality cease on that day ? I desire you to answer 
these questions, not for myself, but for the coun- 
try. If you say the war is still unconstitutional, 
then, according to the rule which you have asserted, 
you are guilty of all the blood that has been shed, 
and all the treasure that has been wasted, since the 
13th May, 1846. On that day you voted to prose- 
cute the war, and made it the duty of the President 
to do so. Yes, all of you, except fourteen, have 
done this. And although there was strength 
enough in the House to have passed the law with- 
out your votes, still, if you considered the war 
unconstitutional, you should at least have pre- 
served your own consciences from offence, and 
have washed your hands of blood, by voting 
against the war. But having voted to prosecute 
the war, you certainly then considered the war 
constitutional. And in this you were manifestly 
correct. Jlny annunciation, by the proper constitu- 
tional power of a government, that war exists, 
is a declaration of war. Congress is invested 
with power to declare war; and bavins: announced 
that fact in the act of 13th May, 1846, it is cer- 
tainly beyond dispute that from thenceforth the 
war was constitutional, and that it now exists, and 
is sanctioned by authority of the Constitution. 

Prior to the 13th May, 1846, the President was 
justified in his acts, by being authorized to repel 
invasion; and since that point of time, the war 
has been constitutional, by being legally and con- 
stitutionally declared. But besides the positive 
authority of the Constitution just noticed to sus- 
tain the war, there is one act of this House which 
proves that you now consider the war constitu- 
tional. When a resolution was offered, a few 



days since, for the purpose of withdrawing the 
army from Mexico, the majority of the Opposi- 
tion (and all of this side) voted the resolution on 
the table. There it sleeps. You had the power to 
pass the resolution: why did you not pass it? If 
you considered the war unconstitutional, were 
you not bound by your oaths to withdraw the 
army? As moral agents, and as good citizens, 
were you not bound to do so? Most certainly. 
And yet you did not. Therefore, but one conclu- 
sion can be drawn from this conduct, and that is, 
that you do not consider the war unconstitutional. 

Now, then, the war being clearly constitutional, 
as admitted by your own official conduct, under 
the solemn sanction of an oath, there is but one 
just course for you to pursue, and that is, to give 
the war your hearty cooperation. 

Mr. Clay, in his celebrated Lexington speech, 
in- 1847, speaking of the war of 1812, and of the 
Federalists of that period, makes use of the follow- 
ing very remarkable language, to which I invoke 
your serious and careful attention: 

" That war being deliberately and constitutionally de- 
clared, it was their (the Federalists) duty to have given it 
their hearty cooperation. But the mass of them did not. 
They lost, and justly lost, the public confidence." 

Here is authority to which you cannot object, 
making it your duty to give the war your " hearty 
cooperation." Observe, it is not sufficient to give 
the war a reluctant support, but it must be a 
" hearty cob)>eration." Your very soul must enter 
into the subject. You must feel an interest in it. 
But have you done so ? Have you heartily coop- 
erated in the prosecution of this war ? Examine 
your own bosoms, look into your own hearts, and 
answer this question. So far as your language 
and conduct are concerned, they are before the 
public, and the people will judge whether you have 
done your duty. And should you be found not to 
have " heartily cooperated" in the prosecution of 
the war, you may look forward with certainty to 
be judged by this rule of Mr. Clay's, and con- 
sequently to lose, and justly lose, the public confi- 
dence. 

But do you ask for what end the war shall be 
prosecuted? I answer, to accomplish the original 
purpose declared in the law of 13th May, 1846 — 
to obtain an honorable peace. Yes, sir, this is 
our object — to protect and defend the honor of the 
nation, and to procure an honorable peace, with 
indemnity for the past and security for the future. 
When this is done, let us have peace, and the sooner 
the better. Peace is desirable, but not at the ex- 
pense of national honor. We resort to war only 
from the necessity of the case; and most anxious- 
ly could we hope, that such necessity might never 
hereafter exist in the conduct of nation with na- 
tion. While, however, we are compelled to take 
up arms in defence of our national rights, let us, 
by all means, do so unitedly and heartily. For want 
of this union — by speaking and writing against the 
war, you encourage the enemy to hold out longer, 
to make further exertions; and you thus cause 
more blood to be shed, and more treasure to be 
expended. You likewise dampen the ardor of 
our soldiers, and chill and weaken the energies of 
the whole country. But for all such as cause a 
prolongation of the war by their own conduct, a 
fearful retribution is awaiting. Public sentiment 
will sooner or later pass upon their actions, and 
posterity will remember them but to execrate 



their names. The idea of " conquest''' seems to i 
haunt the imaginations of gentlemen. They ap- 
pear horror-struck with the thought of marching 
our victorious army into the enemy's country. 
Let gentlemen call to their recollection the war of 
1812. Then, in the prosecution of the legitimate 
objects of the war, we invaded Canada; but no man 
now dare, in the face of the public, declare that act 
unconstitutional, without at once incurring the 
odium attached to the Federalists of 1812. As in 
that war, so in this. The conquest of Mexico has 
been a consequence or incident, not the object of the 
war* And from feelings of magnanimity, when- 
ever the objects of the war can be fully secured, 
as before declared, we are willing to withdraw our 
armies, and restore the conquered country. But 



should Mexico be unable or unwilling to make 
full reparation for her numerous wrongs, in a dif- 
ferent way, then, in that event, we must take^ 
under proper circumstances, full satisfaction in the 
shape of territory. 

Mr. Chairman, I have hastily and briefly stated 
the grounds upon which I justify the President 
for that act, to which so much exception has been 
taken. And with all the facts and circumstances 
of the case before the people, I am perfectly wil- 
ling to abide the decision which they may make. 
And there is at least one consoling reflection — 
that, let the politicians be as they may, the people 
are always for their country, and will always do 
justice to him who rallies to its support, whether 
in the field of battle or in the council chamber. 



W46 



* ^ ^^ft" ^ 'Jell' ^ : ' 












p . \ 









'U A 



4 o^ 



> ^ 



. «v A ♦ ■* 















^ 




i0 




